Feedback please: choosing between 2 seamasters

Posts
201
Likes
96
Last week, I started a thread asking for advice on things to be aware of for either a Seamaster 168.024 or a 166.010. Thanks to people's help, I've narrowed my choices down to these two (below).

Here are 4 screen grabs for the 168.024.

I like this one a lot! I like that it is the chronometer certified model (though I know that is moot on a 50 year-old watch). I think the dial is in wonderful shape. I do notice a scuff on the bezel and bracelet at 12 o'clock. Otherwise, I think the case looks good--not too polished? I'm not qualified to judge the movement--but it looks nice. Does anything leap out to you as problematic? I think this one is my top choice of the two.




And here are 4 shots of the 166.010.

I like this one a lot, too. The case does not seem to have any significant scuffs--so that is good. The hands seem to be just a bit more corroded? And the dial seems to have a bit more corrosion--if that's the right word.



So: I plan to purchase one of these: the first is ca $1200; the second ca $1050. I'm told that the first is a bit more accurate than the second.

I think I'm leaning towards the 168.024. My only real reservation is that scuff on the case at 12.

What do you all think?

Thanks so much!
Chris
 
Posts
20,813
Likes
47,703
They both look nice at first glance. I would like to see the condition of brushing on the sides of the cases and the extent to which the back is polished. Some sellers in Japan polish the crap out of the back.

In real life, tiny marks on the case rarely bother me very much. Polishing and the loss of the original finish are more annoying in the long run,
 
Posts
1,070
Likes
3,715
I second @Dan S’s emotion. I’ve owned/still own both of these varieties and they’re timeless, great watches. The only time I ever notice, or even discover, small imperfections like the ones you’ve noted is when I’m taking photos to sell them. I think you’ll be happy with either.

The 168.024 is a very nice watch. I’ve heard the cyclops crystal is not correct for the reference but in Japan I see a lot of them like that, and mine came with it as well.
 
Posts
1,501
Likes
2,569
Heads-up, bottom watch's missing its fine adjustment screw on the swan-neck regulator.
 
Posts
4,593
Likes
10,791
I agree with your choice in the first watch pictured. It's a beauty and the small scuff on the case and bracelet is nothing at all to focus on.
 
Posts
201
Likes
96
They both look nice at first glance. I would like to see the condition of brushing on the sides of the cases and the extent to which the back is polished. Some sellers in Japan polish the crap out of the back.

In real life, tiny marks on the case rarely bother me very much. Polishing and the loss of the original finish are more annoying in the long run,
Thank you, Dan S: I'll post more pix when I get home!

Chris
 
Posts
201
Likes
96
I second @Dan S’s emotion. I’ve owned/still own both of these varieties and they’re timeless, great watches. The only time I ever notice, or even discover, small imperfections like the ones you’ve noted is when I’m taking photos to sell them. I think you’ll be happy with either.

The 168.024 is a very nice watch. I’ve heard the cyclops crystal is not correct for the reference but in Japan I see a lot of them like that, and mine came with it as well.
Thank you, Krogerfoot--Yes, these are both from Japan. I was surprised at the cyclops--though I knew I didn't know enough to question it. I'd prefer the watch without the cyclops, but it does not really bother me.

And thank you for your words about the scuffs: it's a nice reminder that photos can make us hyper-sensitive to imperfections. 😀
Chris
 
Posts
201
Likes
96
Heads-up, bottom watch's missing its fine adjustment screw on the swan-neck regulator.
Oh wow! I would NEVER have noticed that. Thank you!
Chris
 
Posts
5,930
Likes
43,175
I'd pick the first watch and then lose that crystal in favor of one without cyclops.
 
Posts
20
Likes
3
If you don't mind me asking who you're buying from in Japan I've always been skeptical
 
Posts
201
Likes
96
I'd pick the first watch and then lose that crystal in favor of one without cyclops.
That's an interesting idea! Maybe I can do that!
 
Posts
201
Likes
96
They both look nice at first glance. I would like to see the condition of brushing on the sides of the cases and the extent to which the back is polished. Some sellers in Japan polish the crap out of the back.

In real life, tiny marks on the case rarely bother me very much. Polishing and the loss of the original finish are more annoying in the long run,
Hi again, Dan S--Here are some pix of the case and case back. Do things look ok?
~Chris
 
Posts
20,813
Likes
47,703
Interesting to see those photos. The cases are actually a bit rougher than I expected, which should affect the prices. The back looks fine to me, not badly polished at all.
 
Posts
201
Likes
96
Interesting to see those photos. The cases are actually a bit rougher than I expected, which should affect the prices. The back looks fine to me, not badly polished at all.
Oh! Ha! I thought they looked ok--but I also don't know what they ought to look like. Can you say a little about what you see?
Thank you!
Chris
 
Posts
20,813
Likes
47,703
I'm seeing a LOT of small dings, scratches, and gouges, and some amateur efforts to restore the brushing. It's a little odd to see so much damage on the side opposite the crown. Sometimes people wear their watch with bracelets at the same time and it just carves up the side of the watch.
 
Posts
201
Likes
96
I'm seeing a LOT of small dings, scratches, and gouges, and some amateur efforts to restore the brushing. It's a little odd to see so much damage on the side opposite the crown. Sometimes people wear their watch with bracelets at the same time and it just carves up the side of the watch.
Thanks, Dan S: in your view, do the dings, etc., make the watch a no-go? Or do they justify a request for a lower price?
Thanks again-
Chris